UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

NMA OBINECHE,

Petitioner,

v.

No. 96-1401

U.S. IMMIGRATION & NATURALIZATION

SERVICE,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order

of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

(A72-416-733)

Submitted: February 28, 1997

Decided: March 20, 1997

Before MURNAGHAN and ERVIN, Circuit Judges, and

BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Ronald D. Richey, L. JOHNSON & ASSOCIATES, P.C., Wheaton,

Maryland, for Petitioner. Frank W. Hunger, Assistant Attorney General, Michael P. Lindemann, Assistant Director, Christopher C.

Fuller,

Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Respondent.

_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Nma Obineche petitions for review of the decision of the Board of

Immigration Appeals ("Board") denying her motion to reopen her

deportation proceedings. We affirm.

Because Obineche, a native and citizen of Nigeria, overstayed her

visa, the Immigration and Naturalization Service ("INS") commenced

deportation proceedings. Obineche conceded that she was deportable

but sought asylum in this country and a withholding of deportation.

After conducting a hearing on the merits of her claim, an

immigration

judge ("IJ") denied Obineche's application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Obineche then filed a notice of appeal with the

Board in which her counsel indicated that a brief would be filed in

support of the appeal. No brief was ever filed.

The Board summarily dismissed the appeal under 8 C.F.R.

§§ 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(A), (E) (1996), noting that Obineche's notice of

appeal "in no meaningful way identified the basis of the appeal

from

the decision of the Immigration Judge." The dismissal also

indicated

that although Obineche's notice of appeal indicated a brief would

be

filed, "she never filed a separate written brief or statement, or

offered

an explanation as to her failure to do so."

Obineche then filed a motion to reconsider the deportation decision, with an accompanying brief. Obineche's motion stated that she

had previously filed a brief with the Office of Immigration Judge,

Executive Office of Immigration Review (EOIR), which was supposed to be forwarded to the Board. In her motion to reconsider,

Obineche argued that the IJ erroneously denied her application for

asylum because he failed to consider all the facts and

circumstances

involved. The Board denied the motion to reconsider the deportation

proceedings on the ground that Obineche's motion"failed to

establish

2
that the Board applied improper legal standards, disregarded or

misread prior precedents, or should take cognizance of a recent change

in the law." The Board further found that Obineche had not filed a

brief with her appeal from the IJ's order until three months after

the

briefing schedule deadline. The denial of Obineche's motion to

reconsider is the subject of the petition for review in this court.

A denial of a motion to reconsider or reopen is reviewed with

extreme deference for an abuse of discretion. INS v. Abudu, 485

U.S.

94, 104-05 (1988). Thus, this court must affirm the Board's denial

of

a motion to reopen unless it: (1) was made without a rational

explanation, (2) inexplicably departed from established policies, or (3)

rested

on an impermissible basis such as invidious discrimination against

a

particular group. M.A. v. INS, 899 F.2d 304, 310 (4th Cir. 1990)

(en

banc) (citations omitted). When the Board analyzes a motion to

reopen it does not consider the merits of the underlying claim, but

rather whether new developments warrant rehearing that claim. Id.

at

307 (citing INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 U.S. 444, 446 (1985)). The correctness of the Board's denial of Obineche's motion to reconsider

depends on the correctness of the Board's summary dismissal of

Obineche's appeal from the IJ's order.

Pursuant to 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(A),"[t]he Board may summarily dismiss . . . any appeal in any case in which[t]he party

concerned

fails to specify the reasons for the appeal on . . . (Notices of

Appeal)

or other document filed therewith." See Toquero v. INS, 956 F.2d

193,

196 (9th Cir. 1992); Lozada v. INS, 857 F.2d 10, 13 (1st Cir.

1988);

Townsend v. INS, 799 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1986); ReyesMendoza v. INS, 774 F.2d 1364, 1365 (9th Cir. 1985).

Obineche's notice of appeal from the IJ's order alleged that the IJ

refused to allow certain documents into the record that she

contended

were essential to her political asylum claim so as to deny her due

process of law. She also claimed that the IJ did not give the

documents

any weight in his decision. As the Board noted, however, Obineche

failed to identify in her appeal the evidence she sought to
introduce

at the hearing conducted by the IJ, and explain how it was

wrongfully

denied by the IJ so as to have deprived her of a fair hearing.

Because

the Board was not obligated to engage in speculation to construct

sufficient factual or legal arguments for Obineche, the Board's

summary

3
dismissal was proper. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(A). The Board's

dismissal was also appropriate because Obineche failed to timely

file

a brief with her appeal from the IJ's order even though she

indicated

in her notice of appeal that she would file a separate written

brief or

statement. See 8 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)(1-a)(i)(E).

Obineche's motion to reconsider claimed that she did file a brief

on appeal to the Board and reargued her underlying claim. The Board

denied Obineche's motion because it was directed at conclusions of

law. The Board correctly declined to consider the merits of Obineche's underlying claim. M.A., 899 F.2d at 307. Further, because the

Board's denial of Obineche's motion to reconsider was based on a

rational explanation and did not depart from established policies

or

rest on an impermissible basis, id. at 310, the Board did not abuse

its

discretion in denying the motion.

Therefore, we affirm the Board's denial of Obineche's motion to

reconsider the deportation proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

4